↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the impact of Illumina error correction tools on de novo genome assembly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
58 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of the impact of Illumina error correction tools on de novo genome assembly
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1784-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahdi Heydari, Giles Miclotte, Piet Demeester, Yves Van de Peer, Jan Fostier

Abstract

Recently, many standalone applications have been proposed to correct sequencing errors in Illumina data. The key idea is that downstream analysis tools such as de novo genome assemblers benefit from a reduced error rate in the input data. Surprisingly, a systematic validation of this assumption using state-of-the-art assembly methods is lacking, even for recently published methods. For twelve recent Illumina error correction tools (EC tools) we evaluated both their ability to correct sequencing errors and their ability to improve de novo genome assembly in terms of contig size and accuracy. We confirm that most EC tools reduce the number of errors in sequencing data without introducing many new errors. However, we found that many EC tools suffer from poor performance in certain sequence contexts such as regions with low coverage or regions that contain short repeated or low-complexity sequences. Reads overlapping such regions are often ill-corrected in an inconsistent manner, leading to breakpoints in the resulting assemblies that are not present in assemblies obtained from uncorrected data. Resolving this systematic flaw in future EC tools could greatly improve the applicability of such tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 25%
Researcher 37 21%
Student > Master 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 31 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 27%
Computer Science 19 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 37 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,058,651
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#84
of 7,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,298
of 325,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#2
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.